by Peter Adams
Now that I have read the contract I finally understand SMOC's motivations in pursuing a contract with the Department of Correction and would like to respond to the letter written by Jim Cuddy in response to the report on Channel 5. Text in red italics is from Mr. Cuddy's letter.
Related
Content |
WCVB report: watch for yourself SMOC's contract with the DOC (9 MB PDF file)
|
WCVB Boston Channel 5 aired an Investigative Report on the South Middlese Opportunity Council (SMOC)'s Re-entry Housing Program (RHP). [...] The crux of the report appears to be that SMOC has a lucrative deal with the Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) to warehouse Level III sex offenders in shelters
The fact is that while they may have overstated their case, the WCVB report was accurate in every important detail. I thought the distinction was clear that the "warehousing sex offenders" charge and the contract to find housing for violent offenders were two separate matters. Excerpt:
Every morning as the sun pops above the horizon, dozens of people are pushed out the doors of shelters on Worcester's Main Street and in downtown Framingham.
"Every child in the city of Worcester, every child in the city of Framingham, is in jeopardy because these folks are left to roam the streets of both of these communities without anyone monitoring them," Rep. Robert Spellane said.
What makes these shelters more dangerous than any others in the state?
"This agency, SMOC, is warehousing Level 3 sex offenders in our community and denying it all the way," Spellane said.
The South Middlesex Opportunity Council, or SMOC, manages both shelters. But under a separate agreement with the Department of Corrections, SMOC is also being paid to find housing for inmates recently released from prison. Worcester's mayor said he was in the dark until recently.
In other words, the DOC contract was "a separate agreement" and the "warehousing" charge was made, not by Channel 5, but by Worcester state rep Robert Spellane. Worcester mayor Tim Murray, like Framingham police chief Steven Carl and the Board of Selectmen, was neither consulted nor informed about the DOC contract. No wonder charges like "secretive" and "deceptive" have been made.
And let's not forget that the key charge in this excerpt is absolutely true: once the wet shelters in Framingham and Worcester open their doors in the morning, the residents leave and spend the day roaming the streets of town without supervision.
The RHP contract that SMOC holds with the Commonwealth is not lucrative in any conceivable meaning of that term. The three-year $827,000 contract covers the basic operating cost of the program; salaries, office space, supplies and overhead. Nothing more, nothing less.
When the magician waves his hand over the hat to show you it's empty, that's a sure sign that you should be looking elsewhere for the rabbit.
Following are direct quotes from SMOC's response to the state RFR (Request for Response) which should lead to a very "conceivable" way in which this contract could be lucrative:
SMOC "Housing Specialists will receive extensive orientation to the comprehensive resources network that SMOC and Homestart have established statewide." (p. 13)
Value added services "ensure that program participants get the assistance they need to navigate the myriad of services and programs available to them within SMOC and the community at large." (p. 21-22)
This is a recurring theme: once in a SMOC program, you are funneled into more SMOC programs. For instance, I would be willing to bet that some of the "recovery specialists" at the Sage House are former SMOC clients who were treated by SMOC, fed by SMOC, housed by SMOC, and hired by SMOC. This is not necessarily a bad thing, of course, if SMOC is actually helping them, but it does operate a little like a pyramid scheme, requiring SMOC to grow constantly in order to generate new jobs in the SMOC continuum of care for its former clients.
This growth also makes SMOC more and more powerful and better and better able to quash budding competition by snaring more and more state contracts. (This merging of providers in the social service industry, mandated by the state's requirement of "continuum of care," has also created an effect unintended by the state, where SMOC is often the only bidder, as in the case of the DOC contract.)
Indeed, this alone might be worth SMOC taking this contract: they are, in effect, taking $276,000 per year from the state to recruit clients for their other programs!
Finally, it is instructive to look at the references SMOC provided to the Department of Corrections in its bid: the Department of Transitional Assistance, the Department of Mental Health, and the Massachusetts Housing and Shelter Alliance. While is would not be worth losing money for the privilege, it will be highly profitable in the long run for SMOC to be able to list the DOC as a reference in a future contract application.
The meaning of lucrative is "producing profit or wealth." I would say that by most people's reckoning, SMOC's contract with the DOC is lucrative.
RHP serves all inmates at risk of homelessness referred by DOC, not just sex offenders.
This is well known. I believe the first report (Dave McLaughlin's article of December 31, 2005) that surfaced on this contract said that SMOC won the contract "after touting its ability to work with dangerous criminals like arsonists and sex offenders." This is because SMOC itself wrote, in its proposal to the DOC:
SMOC Housing Specialists have also developed creative housing search techniques to address high risk, difficult to place offender subgroups, for example arsonists and sex offenders.
The issue is not pickpockets and other minor offenders. SMOC won the contract by promising to find landlords who would not examine the criminal records of dangerous, violent offenders. It is understandable that people would focus on the arsonists and sex offenders, especially since there is no way to know where SMOC has "placed" individual offenders.
SMOC does not warehouse sex offenders from across the state in either its Framingham or Worcester shelter. Currently, there are no RHP clients in any of our shelters in the Metrowest area.
There is is a little sleight of hand by Cuddy going on here. It is true that they are not warehousing RHP clients in their shelters, or at least not that we can tell, but they do "house" sex offenders from across the state in its Framingham and Worcester shelters.
Of course, I say "as far as we can tell," and that's all we can say, because the DOC does not require much reporting by SMOC. All reporting done by SMOC to the DOC is numbers: aggregate numbers of clients and balances on their loan account. That is why, when Janet Wu asked associate DOC commissioner Veronica Madden if the accountability they required from SMOC was based solely on trust, she replied "yes."
Further, from the inception of the contract through 3/31/06, RHP served a total of 107 inmates who were jailed for sex offenses. Of those 107 individuals, 6 lived in the Worcester shelter temporarily, and none stayed at our Framingham shelters.
Though there is no proof of this, I'll take Cuddy's word for it. However, where the inmate is originally placed is as important as where they end up. Remember, according to SMOC,
program participants get the assistance they need to navigate the myriad of services and programs available to them within SMOC
SMOC owns at least 867 units of affordable housing (not counting shelters), and of these, the largest percentage are are in Framingham. Many of SMOC's services are in Framingham. There is good reason to believe that, while SMOC may be placing offenders all over the state, many of them are ending up in Framingham. But we'll never know, even if they set fire to a building in Framingham or assault a Framingham child, because we won't know who was served by the SMOC re-entry program.
SMOC does not operate the RHP program or any of its other programs with deception or elusiveness, as claimed in the Channel 5 report
Obviously, there are many people who disagree with Mr. Cuddy on this, including Reps. Spellane and Leary of Worcester. Leary went so far as to accuse Cuddy of going back on its word to him that a lodging house SMOC operates in Worcester will be alcohol-free.
Is it any wonder STEPPS wants any meetings with SMOC to be on the record?
nor is the public at any greater risk due to the presence of sex offenders in the RHPs caseload. These individuals are returning to the community whether or not they are participants in the RHP.
This may be true if SMOC is reporting the addresses of Level 3 sex offenders to local police departments. However, I think having SMOC place arsonists in communities without notice and without reporting their addresses to the DOC could be construed as putting the public at greater risk. Remember, when SMOC places the client in housing, they are not required to report the offender's address to the DOC. The police do not know the arsonist is there, and you can't request the information from the state through the open records law.
Regarding sex offenders, inmates who have committed sex offenses are released to the community every day, many with no probation or parole supervision. SMOC works closely with public safety officials when sex offenders stay in shelters in an effort to help monitor these individuals. We have strong working relationships with both Framingham and Worcester Police Departments
This may be true, but SMOC certainly can't claim credit for it.
Prior to the Fall of 2005, SMOC didn't even notify the Framingham police when a sex offender moved into the wet shelter. The Framingham Police Department — of its own initiative, not SMOC's — undertook to study the makeup of the population at SMOC's wet shelter and it was the Town of Framingham, not SMOC, responsible for SMOC's "strong working relationship" with the Framingham police.
Contract accountability standards are in place for RHP just like they are for every other contract SMOC holds with the Commonwealth. The DOC oversees the program regularly, conducts site visits, reviews client files and examines agency records. DOC personnel work closely with RHP personnel on a daily basis. Simply put, the Massachusetts Department of Corrections holds SMOC accountable for the services that it provides under this contract.
Here is the complete list of items SMOC must report to the DOC under the contract:
That's it -- almost all aggregate data. Nothing the state can use to tract an arsonist, rapist, or murderer.
A reminder here: Janet Wu interviewed Department of Corrections associate commissioner Veronica Madden on this issue:
"They give us statistics about how many are in what kind of placement and the length of time it takes to get permanent housing," Madden said.
"So you just trust them to tell you if they are doing a good job or not?" Wu said.
"Well ... yes," Madden answered.
The Department of Corrections, like the Office of Health and Human Services, has failed the people of Massachusetts by failing to provide meaningful oversight of its contractors, and SMOC has shown over and over again that they cannot be trusted without constant scutiny.
There are two points that I would like to make. First, there is a real story to be told here. Unfortunately, it is not the one that appeared on television.
More sleight of hand. Cuddy implies that the WCVB story is not a real story, that it is fiction. This is simply not true. Cuddy also implies that his version of the story is the only one -- there is a real story to be told. This is also not true.
There are many sides to this story, and while the one Cuddy tells is likely based in reality, it is no more true than the story told by WCVB. Indeed, one might argue that Cuddy's is the story that misrepresents the facts by glossing over the dangers and portraying only the program's successes. And while it's likely based in reality, there may also be a strong dose of wishful thinking in it, as well.
Second, there needs to be a public dialogue around the issues of criminal justice reentry policies, public safety and sex offenders. The Commonwealth is in need of a comprehensive policy regarding sex offenders [and] require offenders under its supervision to be fitted with GPS monitoring systems when appropriate.
This would certainly unburden SMOC in their dealings with the local police over the sex offender issue. Unfortunately, for all the hoo-hah over GPS tracking of sex offenders, it's hardly foolproof. The Boston Herald recently reported on a Level 3 sex offender sitting in a Chuck E. Cheese with his GPS bracelet and a camera, happily snapping pictures of the children.
We certainly applaud SMOC's call for greater oversight of sex offenders. It is a far cry from before, when, prior to an September '05 agreement with the Town, SMOC did not even notify the police department when a sex offender moved into the wet shelter!
And Cuddy is right that there needs to be a public dialogue on this issue and a massive reform of the way the state deals with released sex offenders. However, I am not convinced that SMOC is part of the solution in this case.
Have a comment, correction, or suggestion? Write to the webmaster!